Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 320 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr on 10 April, 2007
● Ld. counsel for appellant referred to the judgment passed by
Supreme Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd.
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H on 3 May, 2010
7. Section 147 was inserted in NI Act by way of amendment in the
year 2002, to make the offence compoundable. While framing the
guidelines for compounding of the offence, Supreme Court in the
case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) observed that "Section 147
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of an
enabling provision, which provides for the compounding of
offences prescribed under the same Act, thereby serving as an
exception to the general rule incorporated in sub-Section (9) of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. which states that "No offence shall be
compounded except as provided by this Section" A bare reading of
this provision would lead us to the inference that offences
punishable under laws other than the Penal Code also cannot be
compounded. However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of
an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of
Section 320 (9) Cr.P.C especially keeping in mind that Section 147
Page 5 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.40/15
Carries a non obstante clause."
Suresh Chandra Goyal vs Amit Singhal on 14 May, 2015
12. On the other hand, ld. counsel for respondent no.2/complainant
contested this plea by submitting that the cheque in question was
in fact given towards sale price of the goods supplied to the
appellant. He also submitted that appellant raised the plea of
supply of defective goods as an after thought story and he did not
make any kind of complaint with the respondent no.2 in respect of
defect of any good. He also referred to a judgment passed by High
Court of Delhi in Suresh Chander Goyal v. Amit Singhal, Crl.L.P.
706/2014 decided on 14.05.2015, to submit that the cheque
allegedly given as security was presented against existing liability
of the appellant and therefore, there is no force in the argument of
appellant that such cheque was not towards any liability against
appellant.